"starting to struggle" message

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

While this doesn't address the core issue of deciding on two outings, I would "storyline" that by the scouts were skeptical on him. That happens in the real game. A guy they don't like plays well - ceiling is slow to come up...it's almost FORCED up by his continued good play. However, a guy like that slumps and everyone parrots out how "they were right" and that the kid is a bum. It's like with Solano for me - hit .251 but his potential went up after a good September call-up chance. His ratings basically maxed his prior potential (I know that doesn't matter...right?), so I thought of it as him convincing guys with his work ethic and learning things in AAA (he was on fire in AAA after his demotion too, so maybe unfair to say it was solely because of his September). As opposed to Koehler who I non-tendered because he just keeps going down in progression (let alone potential). Lazy bum doesn't need spot on my budding rotation. If Hara keeps doing well, maybe he can "force" his ceiling higher. It's still random, but keep him productive and away from cold streaks as much as humanly possible and he'll stay "on the short list" for a boost. It's how Guerrierri became higher potential than Price for me in MLB13. He "forced it" by playing ace-level baseball ever since I called him up. Still looking for my "next Guerrierri" - or maybe I should trade for him in MLB14 lol.

Interesting you are also using the Marlins. Regarding Solano, you don't have to be a professional scout to see he is average at the plate but excellent defensively. In AA and AAA ball he was a .250/260 hitter. I can live with that from a middle infielder, presumably your corner infielders and outfielders are providing offense. Prior to the patch there was a major problem with a lack of offense in the game and for that reason I went shopping for offense at the expense of pitching/defense and I moved Solano and Ramos for Altuve and a worthless reliever. The irony is when Hara pitched the no hitter he walked zero and the only blemish was an error - by Altuve. If not for that it would have been an even rarer perfect game.

Regarding Koehler, I use him as my long relief guy. With his potential rating and attributes I'm not worried about him "taking one for the team" and dropping in potential. Guys like Jacob Turner I leave in the minors developing. Speaking of Turner, his brother Ben is a catcher in the Giants system and I saw him play at Missouri - I live in Columbia. When Heaney pitched here Ben had a couple hits off him and I think that probably helped his draft status because the ballpark was full of MLB scouts looking at Heaney.

Regarding Hara progressing, when I acquired him I liked his attributes and pitch repertoire - doesn't throw a 4 seam fastball, 2 seam and splitter - and figured he would put together solid numbers for his age and get a bump in potential would would allow him to progress nicely. That's why I was surprised when he dropped since he was doing about what I expected.

I wonder if a work around would be to send a pitcher down to A ball for awhile whenever he has a couple poor starts and "trick" the game into looking at his A stats instead of his MLB stats but the problem is then there is a hole in the rotation at the MLB level which has to be filled by someone.

[canes21]

There is nothing to trick. Hara had 2 great starts. Other than that he's obviously been medicos as proven by his stats. You may be happy with his stats and his performance so far, but honestly when I see those stats I see no reason the believe he has the potential to become a top of the rotation guy.

It's one thing to be upset he may not pan out life you were hoping despite meeting your expectations. The reality of it is that his stats aren't anything great and he had 2 good starts and that's it. Yet you can't act like the game is broken because he didn't pan out like you'd like. That's baseball, that's sports, and it's a good representation of reality.

I've had prospects not pan out like I expected, others have. Some come out of nowhere and are in my AAA and are almost MLB ready when I never thought they had a great chance. Hara just isn't panning out like you wanted and it's really nothing too crazy.

Also, I apologize for coming off a bit aggressively and for any mistakes. I'm on a phone on vacation with no Wifi or anything.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

There is nothing to trick. Hara had 2 great starts. Other than that he's obviously been medicos as proven by his stats. You may be happy with his stats and his performance so far, but honestly when I see those stats I see no reason the believe he has the potential to become a top of the rotation guy.

Actually, what he's describing might work...for the wrong reasons. The game presumably just looks at performance - not performance vs ratings vs competition level.

Like you said, even if the player shreds the lower levels, it's no guarantee of getting boosts, so it might not be worth it overall, especially if the player is looked at as a competitive piece for a team with playoff aspirations.

But it might "trick" the system into boosting the player, even if he's really far too good for the level of competition.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

1) The article was posted before the seasons started I believe. 2) This is just an opinion and is nothing set in stone(just like the potential rating). 3) Real life is completely random. How many guys have had breakout years and continued to be great in the 2nd half of their careers after being mediocre the 1st half? How many guys were drafted to be the next Barry Bonds yet never got past AA ball? Real life is completely random. Some guys progress, some guys don't. If it wasn't random, then the job of scouting would be a pretty easy one, no? Every scout would share the same opinion every time. Yet it is random in real life and scouts are wrong all of the time.

I'm not trying to offend you in any way but I have a question. You said in another post you use osfm rosters, and I noticed the person who constructs those rosters liked your post indicating real life is completely random.

Help me understand since I don't use those rosters. I use the first live update roster for my franchise. When they put together those rosters do they assign completely random potential and attributes to minor league players or do they use websites like milb.com and John Sickels minor league baseball website to determine who the best players are and give them ratings based upon their performance at the minor league level?

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

I'm not trying to offend you in any way but I have a question. You said in another post you use osfm rosters, and I noticed the person who constructs those rosters liked your post indicating real life is completely random. Help me understand since I don't use those rosters. I use the first live update roster for my franchise. When they put together those rosters do they assign completely random potential and attributes to minor league players or do they use websites like milb.com and John Sickels minor league baseball website to determine who the best players are and give them ratings based upon their performance at the minor league level?

I'm not sure how they assign potential, but what does that have to do with your issue?

I'm really trying to understand/help with this situation as best I can, but you haven't given us, at least that I've seen, any other stats on your player in question outside of his overall record, ERA, and such.

Its starting to come across, and no offense intended, that you are "complaining" now just for the sake of complaining.

[Knight165]

canes21 didn't work on the roster set.
I'm not sure how you would think he could answer your question anyway.
But....I'm sure he figured it out...just as you know yourself.

But I'll cut through to what you are TRYING to illicit in a response.....

No they are not randomly assigned...either potentials or ratings.
WHY?(or why not?...is probably your question since you are alluding that I agree everything is "completely random since I liked his post. I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE said that everything is completely random and for the second time I would ask you to refrain from trying to imply that about me)
Because nobody has argued that the STARTING POINT of player projections or ratings are not based on something that is a "standard"
It's the progress or regress that is an unknown. You say random.....it's not random...it just is undefinable.

You also seem to never answer a question directed at you.

I just have a few.



You brought up Sickels....
Has he always been right in his projections for every player he scouted?
If not....why?
and I gave you Steve Trout and his career path...
How did a 1st round #8 pick start out so poorly?
How did he have a stat line nearly identical to the player you mention.....and still regress for two years with it when you say it should not?
How did he then turn it around and then dive again if there is not something undefinable in progression/regression of players REGARDLESS of stats?

If you're not going to address these valid questions...please refrain from replying to this post.

M.K.
Knight165

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

canes21 didn't work on the roster set. I'm not sure how you would think he could answer your question anyway. But....I'm sure he figured it out...just as you know yourself. But I'll cut through to what you are TRYING to illicit in a response..... No they are not randomly assigned...either potentials or ratings. WHY?(or why not?...is probably your question since you are alluding that I agree everything is "completely random since I liked his post. I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE said that everything is completely random and for the second time I would ask you to refrain from trying to imply that about me) Because nobody has argued that the STARTING POINT of player projections or ratings are not based on something that is a "standard" It's the progress or regress that is an unknown. You say random.....it's not random...it just is undefinable. You also seem to never answer a question directed at you. I just have a few. You brought up Sickels.... Has he always been right in his projections for every player he scouted? If not....why? and I gave you Steve Trout and his career path... How did a 1st round #8 pick start out so poorly? How did he have a stat line nearly identical to the player you mention.....and still regress for two years with it when you say it should not? How did he then turn it around and then dive again if there is not something undefinable in progression/regression of players REGARDLESS of stats? If you're not going to address these valid questions...please refrain from replying to this post. M.K. Knight165

I was surprised to see you of all people like a post from a guy who claimed real life is "completely random". I know you spend a lot of time on your rosters.

Of course some minor league players flop. 90% of them never make it to MLB. I'm simply wondering how you assign potential and attributes for your rosters. Since a certain percentage of highly rated prospects like Steve Trout fail do you randomly select a certain percentage of top prospects and give them F potential with an overall of 40, guaranteeing they will fail? I'm wondering if you put your theory into practice.

My opinion only, not speaking for anybody else, I believe performance at the MLB level is a better way to predict future performance/potential than performance at the minor league level. And, back to the point of the thread, that's why I was trying to figure out why Hara dropped. He was hardly a top prospect, began at 74 potential.

Wouldn't you agree a 7-7 record, 1.18 whip and a no hitter seems to be enough to at least maintain a 74 potential? Seems to me a guy should actually be struggling before he gets the "starting to struggle" message.

[Knight165]

Still avoiding.
I answered your question ....and Trout had that line.
Can you explain how he followed that with a worse season without a dip?

You're not interested in reality or real answers.
That's readily apparent

M.K.
Knight165